tv [untitled] March 11, 2012 8:00pm-8:30pm PDT
supervisor farrell: all right, so thank you for the comments and slides. any questions? my only comment is, it is by all accounts, statistically, the public-school system is doing extremely well. from everything i hear from parents, they love that. maybe there is a perception problem if they continue to list the education system as a reason to leave. what can we do here in city hall? i think part of the issue of the board of supervisors is that there is a separate board of education, the what can we do to hell? -- to help? getting that message out there is a really big deal. maybe we aren't as engaged as we
should be, but what can we be doing as supervisors to make that happen? >> supervisor farrell, you're starting it right today. the efforts we are seeing over the past five years have been instrumental. i don't think we have this level of partnership and to requirement -- and requirement from 15 years ago. that is why i was very grateful and the superintendent was very grateful to be able to be here. we can work for ways that we can cooperate and share a playground, for example. how we get the word out, it is a slow process. i don't think there is just a silver bullet that we can just come on land. i think it is an evolutionary process that began years ago. supervisor avalos: just to say
i'm sure all of the members of the board of supervisors actively take part in events that happened in schools and our district, - -in -- in our district. i have been at lots of school- sponsored events at the high school, the institute of technology, cleveland elementary school. the opportunity that we take doing the reading, we had a time capsule 100 years ago where it was opened and a great event. there are great ways that we can provide our connection to city resources, or just our name to support the school district. i think it makes a big difference. last year, i was very troubled that we had a very active discourse happening in san
francisco. i think the mayor's race had been a big part of that. they were talking about the neighborhood school initiative. they did not talk about the financing system, they call that the lottery system. that is a very loaded term, so the way that we talk about the school's, the language provided for the discourse is almost hostile toward the policies we are trying to implement in the school district. a candidate put several thousand dollars forward for an initiative. there are many ways that the school district -- not in a vicious way, but at a mile away, it was under attack. a lot of this course happened last year about a family fight linked to that as well.
i can't stay the whole time at the hearing and i apologize for that, but i think it is right that we are focusing on this. i also want to make sure that we can focus on it is clear language as we can, looking at what other assets we have and the city to help support families that are here. i think it is important that we are conscious about how we can share what is working and how we can improve the work we are doing enclosed some of the gaps that are there. i think we want to be clear about how we can talk in a most positive light despite people having difficult experiences. there is a lot we can focus on that is positive moving forward. >> next, we have mayor's office of housing, brian chiu is here
about a few things, setting some of the demographic information that was referenced previously. we will focus specifically on households, the income of households, and how many families are in the income ranges. we will talk about the overall housing market of san francisco including rental, ownership, regional dynamics of the crash, and we will end up speaking more about how housing is done. if this is created through direct development, through the inclusion reprogram. and we will talk about what the future holds. when we talk about the number of households, remember that not all households are families and not all family households contain children. ami is area median income.
when we talk about area median income, we will be using as our example, a family of three. this gives you a general idea, talking about media then come at 100% -- median income at 100%. for a family of three, it would be glad to 2007 hundred dollars. -- $92,700. that income and other districts would seem relatively high. in san francisco when i talk about homeownership prices, it is a very different story. let's talk about the change in households with and without children. you will see the number of households with children was about 63,867 back in 2000. in 2010, it remained relatively
constant, it went down slightly to 63,577. you can see the number of households without children increased. it means that in 2000, a little over 19% of households were with children. it went down by about 1% over the past 10 years, we are down to 18%. supervisor farrell: just so i can extrapolate off of those numbers, the number of households with children have stayed constant, but the children i assueme 0-18 -- >> the percentage remained relatively constant, but the number of children overall has decreased. perhaps households are having fewer children, or perhaps it is the same household. if they are not moving out of the city but the children of aging out, it's not being
counted. supervisor farrell: thank you. >> back to powerpoint. if we can go back to the slides. all right. so even though the number of households with children has remained constant over the past 10 years, there has been a change in the composition of those households with children. we found that this was very interesting. we have seen over the past 20 years, the relative percentage has decreased in terms of very low households, moderates ,low,. the most dramatic increase has been in those households that have ami of 150% or more.
while the overall number of households has remained constant, no. of households -- the number of households with extremely high in come has got up with a decrease in households with lower income. it is looking very different in 2010 that was in 1990. president chiu: you have any color versions of this? it is a little hard for us to see the data. >> it is technically in color on the screen, but you can see -- it is a little bit harder reed. you can see in the middle. the line that goes up is upper income. the next line down is very low. in 1990, the very low population that was 0-50% was the highest
percentage of households with families that has gone down. moderate-income has gone down, low-income has gone down. upper income has gone dramatically up. president chiu: i think this chart tells a really important story, this is really the tale of two families or the tail of many families and sent francisco, right? >> you will see on the next slide -- can we go back to the slide? so let's compare that to relative growth in households overall. households with families, these are overall households. you can see there the upper-
income households increased, while the rest remained relatively flat or decreased slightly. over all, very low income households have increased as a percentage in the past 20 years, but very low income households with children have decreased. it is a little bit tricky to figure out what that means. white in san francisco is it's still a place where low income households in general come to live. but it seems low income households with children do not have the same incentive to stay in san francisco as overall low income households composed entirely of adults. it is hard to know exactly what to draw from this, but it was a dramatic difference. >> de look at these charts
relative to other cities? san francisco is obviously a -- and expensive place to live. the other areas have similar trends we can look at? it will never be apples to apples. >> the only comparison we have done so far is look at cities and overall number of children. we have not done a family analysis. but you look at the number of children as a proxy. in san francisco, 13.4% of our overall residents are children. we are at 13.4%. seattle is at 15.4%. boston is at 16.8%. portland is at 19.1%. chicago is at 23%. san jose is at 25%. other cities that are geographically close to us or have high cost of living all have a higher percentage of children and san francisco does.
chairperson farrell: but we do not have friends in terms of income households? >> we can try to look for that. chairperson farrell: that would be helpful. we want to learn best practices and see how we are doing good and bad. i agree that tells a pretty good story of what is happening. but i think we need to dig a little deeper before we jump to conclusions about why. >> let us go to the next slide. this gives you a pie chart, talking about all of the households with children. you can see that 57% of households with children are on either end of the spectrum, either over 150% or less than 50%. this relates to some information about middle income housing, where san francisco tend to be a barbell sort of city. you have a high number of
households at the low-end, a high number of households at the high end. there is a much smaller range in the moderate to middle income level. this reflects that. >> maybe this was answered before, but we do not have the comparative data with other cities? >> not with other cities. this chart is what was referenced by the director in terms of the first 5 data. this talks about the decline in the last 10 years in number of children overall. in the last 10 years, the child population declined by about 5%. however, the number of children 5 and younger increased by 9%. you can see that increase of 9% was more than outweighed by the decrease in children 5 to 18. chairperson farrell: it just
exacerbates how big the difference is with the five to eight teen group. i think there is a big difference for us as legislators in city hall to think about. if this is a national trend or national issue, that is ok, but that is different than if this is something san francisco is doing good or bad. i think that is important to look at. >> this is the other chart that was referenced earlier. this can lead to a great deal of speculation. this is the zero through five childrens' population by neighborhood. even know there was a 9% increase overall in the city over the past 10 years, it was surprisingly not distributed evenly across the neighborhoods. south of market and embarcadero had a huge population increase. chairperson farrell: is there a way to blow that up?
>> i do not think there is a zoom. i will tell you what is at the top. at the top is south of market embarcadero, based on an 865% increase. that is not surprising when you think of the recent development in the south of market district. you concede district 6 has the largest increase in population over the last 10 years. the next highest percentage increase was in treasure island, then the financial district, the presidio, potrero hill. at the bottom, mission bernal heights had a 14% decrease. visitation belly had a 13% decrease. -- visitation valley had a 13% decrease. chinatown had a decrease. chairperson farrell: for folks looking at the screen, are
trying to -- the neighborhoods higher on the chart have seen the highest increase in percentage of children in their neighborhoods. is that correct? >> that is exactly right. on the column to the far left is the name of the neighborhood. the next column is the current zero through five population. the next column is the overall% of the city population. the third is the percentage change the last column is the increase in sheer numbers of children from 2000 through 2010. again, it is often reflective of other kinds of issues occurring in the neighborhoods. often, in south of market, there was a huge increase in development in certain neighborhoods. this was just a quick chart to show within the different income
brackets if there were differences in the percentage of households with children. it is relatively even, ranging from 16% of low income families up to 19% of very wealthy households. let us move on briefly to the housing market. we know about the inexpensive housing market in san francisco. let us talk about the rental affordability gap. the line and goes right across the center is the medium gross rent in san francisco, which is 1385. this may seem a bit low, but remember rent control is different from the rent you would get going straight out into the market. what we put out here is the
affordability gap for a three- person family. if the median gross rent is 1385, we look at the median income of households at 80%, 100%, and 150% anu,'-- ami. chairperson farrell: when you look at media numbers, the mean it tells another story. >> we have a look at it. you are right the median does not tell the whole story. it also does not indicate what people are willing to pay. you may be at the 50% ami. what is affordable is usually defined as 30% of their gross income.
in san francisco, we know the average percentage -- they are usually paying about 70% of their gross income toward rent. that are making a decision to purchase a place that may not be affordable for them because of the overall market. chairperson farrell: to purchase? >> i am sorry. to rent. chairperson farrell: with homeowners, how does that pair? home ownership in san francisco is very expensive, as is right. i believe it is a fact that we pay more in san francisco as a percentage of gross income on whether you rent or mortgage. >> what this chart is trying to get to is that if you are at the 120 to 150%, you are generally able to find, if you search long enough, an apartment that is somewhat affordable. the picture changes dramatically when we talk about home ownership. you are at 100 per -- 100 to 2%
-- 100% ami. you are not able to get up to the median sales price. you're pretty far from it all the way around. chairperson farrell: this is that 30%? >> 33% for home ownership. affordable is defined at 33%. you and i probably do not know many people who are paying 33% of their income. chairperson farrell: i think lenders right now -- the standard -- i have been in discussion with lenders about other policies around home ownership. that are lending even jumbo loans for some folks at 50%. and that is the tightened restrictions today compared to six years ago, when money seemed to be free. >> exactly. this is just an interesting chart we put together to show
that affordability does differ according to different neighborhoods. at 120% ami, if you look at affordability, only 23% of the houses are technically affordable, meaning 33% of their income. that does not mean it is the same across all the different neighborhoods. if you were going to look at bayview, 87% of the houses on bayview would be affordable to someone at 120% a year my -- ami. the housing prices in the southeast part of the city are lower than the rest of the city. it parallels, in a way, from the choices those in san francisco have to make. do i live in the city? if i do, what neighborhood do i live in? or do i choose not to live in
the city? do i want to live in san mateo? we know the affordability gap has decreased, meaning housing prices have gone down a little bit. it is not quite as hard to buy a home. the affordability gap has decreased more dramatically in every county that surrounds san francisco. it is even a little cheaper than it was 10 years ago. it is a far better deal to go to sonoma. those are trade-offs. chairperson farrell: if you keep that chart up -- methodology -- because nobody really pays on home ownership 33% in the city -- it is nice to think about, but i do not think it is reality. if you put it at 50%, is that a linear chart? do those bubbles grow together?
or does it look different? >> it would be roughly equivalent. we do have a chart that is a little bit above what you are doing. we can do it at 80% amide. -- ami. it does tend to grow proportionately. the darker blue become darker and the lighter become lighter. it does match where you're saying. this next table just talks about the affordability gap. you can see between 2000 after the housing bust, the housing prices went down dramatically. obviously, it is not as a household incomes increased to me that change. what is san francisco actually building? we have shifted to a higher density housing, largely condos.
single-family homes tend to be much older. we are not building any of those. only 2% of new units built were single-family detached homes. we are not creating stock. for some families, that might be attractive. chairperson farrell: there is a bit of that the economy in san francisco. we want to attract war families. i think there has been a general policy, if not explicitly stated, to increase density across our city. how do you think about that? >> is an interesting question for us, in terms of our ability to finance affordable housing. the only financing vehicles that are viable for what we can produce are in the multifamily setting. we do not have a vehicle to do single-family detached homes. by the senses, people report about 33% of individuals say
they live in single-family homes. we think that is overstated. the census has said people do not understand, when you ask them -- they say, "i am not living with anyone else, so i am in a single-family home." in boston, only about 18% of families say they live in single-family homes. san jose, 70%. oakland 48%. if you are comparing us to other options like oakland and san jose, people are still able to go to areas of cities where they are more likely to find single- family detached homes. president chiu: one other question. the above comments on the high density low condo buildings we have? how many have the multi-room
spaces that are large enough for families? i continue to hear we do not have enough three-bedroom, four bedroom places in our condo buildings. i wonder if you have a reaction. >> we do not have the break down, but i can get that for you. chairperson farrell: i see a number of folks in the room that are familiar with housing production. i think a lot of families would prefer a single-family detached home. if you were able to in sent some of these larger spaces, would that help or not? -- president chiu: >> the tiny blue that you can barely see are the single-family detached homes as a percentage. we looked closely at -- there was a 2006 working group on
housing. these were the six items adopted back then. create a definition of family friendly housing. crit housing for vulnerable families. make sure there is a 20% minimum of family-friendly housing. and create a permanent dedicated mobile source of funding for housing for families with children. chairperson farrell: family- friendly housing is probably subject to a lot of subjectivity. how you phrase it? >> in terms of what came out of this policy council, when we were creating family units, is the design family-friendly of the overall building? for example, picking one at random, in a multi-unit residentsdo